Perhaps I’m misunderstanding what you mean here. It sounds like you’re saying that even if it were proven beyond any reasonable doubt that Biden used his position to extort the Ukrainians into firing the prosecutor investigating his son’s company for corruption, that President Trump still wouldn’t be justified in asking the Ukrainians to investigate those corrupt acts. That seems bonkers to me. Have you got something else in mind when you say “the wrongdoings in question”?
“If little Jimmy Johnson extorted other countries in defiance of The Constitution Of The United States, do you think it means that you should do it too?”
It doesn’t matter whether Biden is corrupt or not, what matters is trump is running in 2020 and potentially against Biden. If there was any substantial evidence to warrant such a search it should have been forwarded to a department or source that is not the President.
If something comes up of Biden doing something wrong, then fuck yeah get him I’m all for kneecapping the guy. Never the less Trump shouldn’t be forcing foreign entities to give/find information on his political opponents.
Once again, it’s not credible that someone seriously interested in corruption would ask a foreign government, rather than US law enforcement, to investigate. There’s no reason to entertain such obvious fiction.
He doesn’t need a leg stand. He just needs the flimsiest fig leaf for his supporters to latch onto, even if the fig leaf makes no sense, isn’t true, and doesn’t exonerate him. That’s how desperate they are to avoid the mental anguish of understanding exactly what they fell for and what they’ve done, and continue to do, to our country.
So when Senate Dems send a letter to Ukraine asking for cooperation into investigations of Americans, they were … what? Not credible? Not seriously interested in corruption? Entertaining an obvious fiction?
ETA: I know, there are some differences between the two situations. Do you recognize there are some similarities too?
If there were any reasonable cause for investigation, there is a procedure for initiating such a proceeding.
If the President had taken his suspicions though the proper channels and started an investigation in accordance with our MLAT -Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty - I would have had strong suspicions of partisanship but I’d probably, ultimately, concede he had the right.
Russia and Ukraine are not countries that operate under the rule of law. They use drummed up investigations as a pretext to rob people they don’t like. Sometimes they even torture and murder them.
And I feel it’s unconscionable to deliberately put an American citizen in that kind of danger. Even if they didn’t vote for you. It’s how I would feel if Trump encouraged North Korea to fully investigate and prosecute Otto Warmbier.
If Trump took a literal crap on the Resolute Desk ( instead of the figurative deuces he’s been dropping since he was elected ) — The Republicans would claim that he didn’t have a butthole, his energies are in such prefect balance he doesn’t urinate or defecate. And his supporters would believe him.
There was no existing investigation into Biden that Trump was asking Ukraine to cooperate with. Asking for cooperation for a real, legitimate, existing investigation is entirely different from asking a foreign government to start a whole new one, especially into a political opponent, and extra especially when in exchange for military aid.
As others have already said, yes, Trump would still be unjustified in the pursuing the actions as he did.
There are processes and channels for initiating investigations of American citizens. These processes do not include secret extortion attempts of foreign leaders.
I have no issue at all if the justice system wants to look into Biden’s conduct in regard to Ukraine. I have no issue that if such an investigation is ongoing they then ask for their Ukrainian counterparts to provide assistance in that investigation.
This inquiry has nothing to do with what Biden may or may not have done.
But Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richie Neal’s basis for review of these returns is very narrow. He is acting in his oversight capacity. In this case, that duty involves evaluating the IRS policy to audit all presidents’ tax returns to ensure they are being audited appropriately. There is a basis for that from the Nixon years, as noted by Mr. Neal. Included in his letter is a statement that the House Ways and Means Committee "is considering legislative proposals and conducting oversight related to our Federal tax laws, including, but not limited to, the extent to which the IRS audits and enforces the Federal tax laws against a President.” This is a legitimate concern, as the history of former President Nixon’s initially lenient IRS audit shows.
But that’s not true. A taxpayer does maintain some “ownership” over their tax returns. If you doubt it, get caught making a mistake on one that inures to your benefit and not that of the IRS. More to the point, this is the defense Trump is raising, that he has a right to protect his returns – so it is germane to the discussion.
I’m not arguing in any way that the law doesn’t have limits or that it can’t be tested. But the statute itself does not say that a justification for the request is necessary. The issue before SCOTUS will be whether Congress has their right of oversight as it has been conducted for numerous public officials since 1924. Here is a good discussion about the history of the law, why it is still good law and likely to be upheld by SCOTUS. (Accounting Today)
From the article:
Hence the word, “If,” in my original post. I assigned no motives, only wondered if that gave rise to your thinking. We don’t know each other. No need to get shirty.
